+1 On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:29 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> I'd recommend to incorporate all Polymorph's overrides into Morphic. > Then you can still maintain Polymorph as separate package, > but don't fool yourself with a tons of overrides. > > On 13 March 2010 19:15, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mar 13, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Gary Chambers wrote: >> >>> All "fun" on squeak-dev... >>> >>> Getting close to abandoning support for Polymorph in Squeak at all now... >>> Only a few apps based on 3.9 left here. Not sure they need any of the >>> ongoing improvements. >> >> I'm not sure that maintaining two version is an option for you. >> >>> So, the question is, how would we want future additions/changes/fixes to >>> apply in Pharo. >> >> The way you were doing them is ok. >> You could also publish directly in Pharo >> But if you want to have you own package and control over it this is ok too. >> >>> Having Polymorph as an external (mergable, not loadable) package has worked >>> well for us, as much as it can be well. >>> >>> Perhaps changesets are the way to go from here... opinions/advice welcome... >> >> Why MC is not good for you? >> >>> >>> Regards, Gary >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
